There are some partial solutions that are fairly simple in concept, for example those related to farming. Some of the crops grown in regions where water is less than abundant are unnecessarily water-intensive, leading to a possible strategy that can be summarised as "grow something else". In practice this means regulating farming with emphasis on water management, I often feel that many places could use more regulation in this area.
Simple concept does not mean simple execution, once you start regulating things it's easy to get it wrong, but the ideas are there and are not exactly novel.
There are also a variety of co-planting schemes that drastically reduce water use (i.e. things like combining vegetable farming with shade trees), albeit often at the expense of making mechanical harvesting significantly more challenging.
Removing tariffs on beef specifically is a serious mistake, there's no need to incentivise any more production of that.
Other agricultural imports, like soy and coffee beans, are a huge boon to the EU on the other hand. If this results in cheaper coffee, everyone in my country, for one, will be ecstatic.
While I agree that we ideally shouldn't be incentivizing more beef production, the reality is that making a trade agreement (at least the European way) involves a lot of give-and-take, compromises, and concessions.
Mercosur countries have a powerful beef industry which they're proud of, and their governments are interested in advancing that industry. Lowered beef tariffs were almost certainly one of their prerequisites to forming a deal.
That said, do note that the tariffs are only lowered up to a quota level of beef imports. Relative to the size of the EU's domestic beef industry, these imports are not that significant.
We have to notice the blatant hypocrisy here: on the one hand we are told that the environment and net zero are top priorities, and on the other hand we are also told that it is great to have beef shipped to us from literally the other side of the world... (Tokyo is nearer to Brussels than Buenos Aires)
The process of shipping of beef from Buenos Aires to Brussels has a much smaller climate impact than the process of producing that beef in the first place. In particular, the methane burped up from cows has a gigantic impact on radiative forcing in the upper atmosphere. And again, the amount of beef being allowed to be shipped to Europe is quota'd to a quite amount relative to the domestic industry.
That's not to say that we shouldn't do anything about these emissions, but the solution is going to be to develop more climate friendly shipping techniques, not to eliminate global trade.
Beef from Argentina is basically as good as it gets in terms of animal welfare.
Most are raised under extensive systems (not confined feedlots). They live on large grasslands (hundreds of acres) where they roam freely and graze pastures.
That's completely unlike things like Chicken which live their whole life in over crowded poultry houses, never seeing the outdoors, or even daylight.
Soybeans have probably a worse impact on the environment than beef. Most of the deforestation in SA in the past couple of decades was for soybean farms.
According to this source, 77% of soy production is used for animal feed. That only a small percentage of it goes to cattle is irrelevant in terms of the damage caused.
Argentina beef are raised in pasture. About as eco friendly as it gets. Converting pasture to row crops is far more devastating to the environment (topsoil loss, GHG emissions from loss of biomatter in topsoil, fossil fuel derived fertiliser and more.)
Having grown up in the mountains, and currently living in a hilly snowy area, no thanks I'll keep my SUV. My in laws have a mini van, and it's not great.
I deal and have dealt with enough deep snow that would eat a van.
I still might get a Sienna Hybrid for daily commuter
Don't let this situation define who you are, there is more to life than one particular career path (or even payed work in general, to be honest). Just because things haven't worked out the way you wanted at this time, does not make you "a failure" by any means, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Others have (and will) given specific career advice, meanwhile I'd like to emphasise this: you absolutely can, and should, do hobbies, preferably including such that involve physical activity cause that's good for your health. Doomscrolling is not a good one. You have every right to have free time and to enjoy it, everyone does.
Execution could have been a bit better but ultimately it's really hard to make electric vehicles with 1980s battery technology. Just about the only successful EV of the era was the golf cart and that's very niche.
Electric moped was right idea but some 30 years ahead of its time.
There was one much more successful EV, although it too was niche: The UK had "perhaps 40,000 milk floats" in the 1970s and 1980s before supermarkets took over as primary milk distributors. ( https://zavanak.com/transport-topics/british-electric-cv-his... )
Probably also the wrong country. I can imagine something like C5 taking off in the SF Bay Area. In the UK, you have something like 160 rainy days a year. People bike over there, but this somehow feels worse.
The Sinclair C5 battery charger and battery was ahead of its time. I remember my Dad (who was something of a lead acid battery nerd) being very excited about it.
The battery in the C5 was designed to be run to 0% charge which would kill most lead acid batteries in no time, but if I remember rightly the charger would recover them by putting quite high voltages across them to de-sulphate them. Or something like that (not a lead acid battery nerd :-).
Android seems to be a bit better in that regard: not in the sense that applications are smaller (though I think they are, slightly), but rather that you can easily unpack or decompile most of them and see what's inside.
There it tends to be mostly due to dependencies, including some native libraries in multiple copies for 2-3 CPU architecture.
MS auth service as such does support TOTP (though even then it won't stop bugging you about the authenticator) but then it probably depends on how those resources are configured. Never been on admin side of it so don't know if it's on by default.
Even my local Swedish newspaper paid him respects. It may feel a bit better knowing that somewhere half way across the world, people knew him and considered him a celebrity.
There's a bit more to it since you do need to do last bit of configuration (pull up the nose) just as you hit the target speed. But yeah, automatic take-off is quite a bit easier than automatic rejection of take-off.
Even manually pulling up the nose once you reach Vr isn't necessary if you just trim for a little extra nose-up. It'll eventually get off the ground with just enough speed.
Simple concept does not mean simple execution, once you start regulating things it's easy to get it wrong, but the ideas are there and are not exactly novel.